Poll Question:
Alrite this is a hypothetical question. Wayne Gretzky and Sidney Crosby are both eligible to be drafted in the 1979 entry draft. That means they'll play in the scoring frenzy of the 80's. Your team has the 1st overall pick in the draft. The two have the same points of what they did in there Junior years. So who do you pick, Wayne Gretzky or Sidney Crosby?

Tough question since both have great junior seasons, but they played in very different times in, essentially, very different games. I think the difference between them was Wayne's ability to make everyone around him better. He was a set up man, above and beyond anything else. Crosby was able to do it all by himself, but can you name anyone else on his Rimouski team? Granted, you probably can't name any of Gretzky's Sault Ste. Marie Greyhounds team mates, but that was almost 30 years ago.Gretzky was scouted as being "unhitable", "able to see out of the back of his head", and "knew where the puck was going before it got there" when he as 16.Crosby's a special player... but Getzky was the "Great One". Greatest ever.

Tough but im gonna have to say Gretzky because well he was a great goal scorer and Crosby is well a set-up man and ultimate said Gretzky was the great one how can u compare that nickname to Sid The Kid I am what I am- Sid The Kid

Tough question since both have great junior seasons, but they played in very different times in, essentially, very different games. I think the difference between them was Wayne's ability to make everyone around him better. He was a set up man, above and beyond anything else. Crosby was able to do it all by himself, but can you name anyone else on his Rimouski team? Granted, you probably can't name any of Gretzky's Sault Ste. Marie Greyhounds team mates, but that was almost 30 years ago.Gretzky was scouted as being "unhitable", "able to see out of the back of his head", and "knew where the puck was going before it got there" when he as 16.Crosby's a special player... but Getzky was the "Great One". Greatest ever."I didn't know Sedin was Swedish for punch me"-Brian Burke, 2002

Three players on that team (the Greyhounds) coached in the NHL...Gretzky, Hartsburg, and Nolan...

Haaaahaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaa!!!!Fantastic. Another opportunity to stir things up. Thanks Paintrain.Interesting that people think this is so cut and dried. I would honestly take Crosby in that situation. Like it or not Crosby has more game than Gretzky, Gretzky just had a greater ability in one particular facet of the game. Crosby can do what Gretzky could do, maybe not quite to the same level offensively, but it's closer than most people think. Compare their first two seasons by stats and after adjustment for era they are surprisingly close. Now, on top of that, Crosby also plays a physical game. Gretzky did not. Crosby in the 80's would have been very interesting indeed.

Willus, with all due respect, your changing stats for the era thing is absolute crap. It's what people that want to try to discredit Gretzky talk about to TRY to put someone anywhere near Gretzky. You can say anything you want about this era and these changes, it's all crap to me.

And as far as your Gretzky had one facit of the game is again pure crap. They recently replayed a game from 80-81 when Edmonton lost to NYI is 6 games. It totally solidified exactly what I remember of Gretzky.

-He did back check. Through that whole game every shift he back checked deep into his own end. Maybe he wasn't physical, but he back checked hard and his guy never had a clear shot or path to the net.

-Other players were physical with him. Maybe even a little more than physical. He had a target on his back through the whole game, and there were at least a half dozen times that someone had him lined up and straight up missed.

-Gretzky, as a rookie, was head, shoulders, chest, and hips over EVERYONE else on the ice. Not even a contest. Goring or Potvin werethe next best players in that game, but it was nothing like Gretzky.

Seriously, I think your negative bias towards Gretzky is really losing it's fact basis more and more. I would like to see you watch a couple of games of Gretzky in his prime again, then honestly ask your self if you would take Crosby or Gretzky.

If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997.

quote:Willus, with all due respect, your changing stats for the era thing is absolute crap. It's what people that want to try to discredit Gretzky talk about to TRY to put someone anywhere near Gretzky. You can say anything you want about this era and these changes, it's all crap to me.

Beans, with all due respect, what you said is what people who love Gretzky and his numbers and fail to take into account the inflated scoring of the 80's say about adjusted stats because it evens things out somewhat and you don't like that. Pavel Bure scored 60 goals a season in the heart of the dead puck era and people were impressed. It's not as impressive when you look at how he did it. He cherry picked hard. Gretzky cherry picked in the high scoring 80's except people say "oh he was just so good at anticipating the play, he wasn't actually cherry picking". Rick Vaive in the 80's played very much the same way Gretzky did but he wasn't anticipating the play, he was cherry picking. Come on.

quote:And as far as your Gretzky had one facit of the game is again pure crap. They recently replayed a game from 80-81 when Edmonton lost to NYI is 6 games. It totally solidified exactly what I remember of Gretzky.

-He did back check. Through that whole game every shift he back checked deep into his own end. Maybe he wasn't physical, but he back checked hard and his guy never had a clear shot or path to the net.

By deep in his own end you must mean just inside his blueline because him being any further than that was more rare than a sober night for Lyndsay Lohan.

quote:

-Other players were physical with him. Maybe even a little more than physical. He had a target on his back through the whole game, and there were at least a half dozen times that someone had him lined up and straight up missed.

Yes he was very shifty.

quote:-Gretzky, as a rookie, was head, shoulders, chest, and hips over EVERYONE else on the ice. Not even a contest. Goring or Potvin werethe next best players in that game, but it was nothing like Gretzky.

Offensively, yes.

quote:Seriously, I think your negative bias towards Gretzky is really losing it's fact basis more and more. I would like to see you watch a couple of games of Gretzky in his prime again, then honestly ask your self if you would take Crosby or Gretzky.

It wasn't that long ago that i posted and said I had just watched the 93 Leafs Kings playoff game where the Kings went on to the finals. As i said then it confirmed what I knew to be true. You couldn't see Gretzky when the puck was in his end. That is not an exaggeration either. I specifically watched him.

Lastly, i don't waffle. I would still take Crosby. I prefer how he plays.

The thing about this hypothetical is that it is almost like a DOUBLE hypothetical. Not only are we considering how Crosby would have done in the 80s, but we are also projecting, based only on the two years we have seen so far, on what Crosby is actually going to do in the 2000s and 2010s (lousy time for labeling decades, isn't it). As much as I have been a proponent of hypotheticals on this site, this extra factor makes this hypothetical quite tough because we don't know what is going to happen with Sid. We don't know, for instance, whether Sid the Kid is going to skyrocket offensively in the next few years the way Wayne did in the early 80s after his first two years, or at least get to what I'll call "ultimately, close to as effective as Wayne offensively even if 50 points or so per season less than him" incredible offensive production. We also don't know enough about Sid in playoff time yet.

For the time being, I am going with Wayne, but, as I too like Sid's "complete" game, I'd like to try this poll again in about seven years. If Sid continues to be a very impressive complete player AND also produces very well offensively (not necessarily meaning Gretzky like numbers but, let's say for example, between 125 and 150 points a year - which, with all due respect Beans, would have to be adjusted at least a little into 80s numbers for the purpose of the comparison in my opinion) AND if Sid shows us some greatness in a few pressure playoff situations, then I may be willing to "waffle" over to the Willus side.

Guest9956 ( )

Posted - 08/27/2007 : 07:41:38

Just watch the final 3 game DVD set of the 1987 Canada Cup ("Blade Wars"). No one could touch Gretzky. Not Lemieux, not Fetisov, not Messier, not Kamensky... no one. The guy had 5 assists against the best players in the world in game 2. He was all over the ice. And it was how he rose to the occasion, not just that he scored the points. I haven't yet seen Crosby reach that level of play. It would be great if he did though. The NHL needs something like that again.

Well Willus, the game I watched there were number of times that Gretzky made the break out pass from behind the faceoff circles in his end. There was one pass, where he skated in and took the puck off the guys stick in this own corner, took it out of his end to the left, and hit Kurri at the other blueline on the right, without looking where the pass was going. It was amazing. And what made it even better was that Kurri was being played by Potvin and he didn't even know Kurri had the puck until he was two strides past him. It was sick. Definately no one in the league that can do that today.

And I hold true about the adjusted stats thing. Why is it that the 80's are the only time in hockey history where stats need to be "adjusted???" It's stupid. Does that mean that Richard's 50 in 50 isn't really 50 in 50 because you have to adjust the dead puck/big pads/new equipment?? It's dumb.

And I don't see how Crosby has that complete of a game. Willus, do you equate a complete game to being physical?? Is that why Gretzky is low on your list because he didn't play physical?? Crosby's defense is no better or worst than Gretzky. He's not even a penalty killer. How is he so superior defensively?? I don't see it.

Even if you speak only offensively for a moment, Crosby, as talented as he is, can not come close to Gretzky. Adjusted stats or not he will not be as productive as Gretzky. In fact, it would not surprise me at all if Crosby doesn't finish his career with half of Gretzky's production. Let's not forget that Gretzky's 1st two years he had 106 goals and 189 assists. Crosby is not far behind with 75 goals and 147 assists. So Sid's only 79 points behind. The sick thing is in the next 6 years, Gretzky had 1219 points. He AVERAGED more than 200 points a year for 6 years!!! In his first 10 years, he averaged 184 points/season. And let's not forget his 274 play off points in his first ten years, and the 4 Cups. Can Crosby even come remotely close to that?? Not on your life.

Willus, do me a favor. Put your magical stat adjustment to compensate for today againsts Gretzky's first 10 years and tell me what Crosby has to average over the next 8 to match the Great One.

So you take Crosby on his defensive ability?? You like his style of play better. Well, I can't knock that. I think a team with Gretzky or Crosby is very exciting and more than likely a winner. I would still take Gretzky and his ability to do things that no one else ever could. Crosby doesn't do anything that anyone else can't do. The thing that makes Crosby so good is the fact that he can do anything in the game at top speed. Most players can't. But he still can't do what Gretzky could.

If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997.

If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997.

quote:And I hold true about the adjusted stats thing. Why is it that the 80's are the only time in hockey history where stats need to be "adjusted???" It's stupid. Does that mean that Richard's 50 in 50 isn't really 50 in 50 because you have to adjust the dead puck/big pads/new equipment?? It's dumb.

The80's aren't the only era that gets adjusted. They all get adjusted to reflect an average era. It's just that the 80's take the largest adjustment because the scoring was so inflated. Other eras don't change near as much after adjustment. It is by no means a perfect system but it isn't complete crap either. It gives a fairly good indication of what would happen across eras.

quote:And I don't see how Crosby has that complete of a game. Willus, do you equate a complete game to being physical?? Is that why Gretzky is low on your list because he didn't play physical?? Crosby's defense is no better or worst than Gretzky. He's not even a penalty killer. How is he so superior defensively?? I don't see it.

I didn't say Crosby has a complete game. I said he has more game. His defensive game can use a little work but everything else is there save fighting. He doesn't shy away from any part of the rink. How do you figure Gretzky is low on my list? If you're in the top ten hockey players of all time it's an absolutely incredible achievement. There have only been about 10 000 players. Top ten is pretty decent no?

quote:Even if you speak only offensively for a moment, Crosby, as talented as he is, can not come close to Gretzky. Adjusted stats or not he will not be as productive as Gretzky. In fact, it would not surprise me at all if Crosby doesn't finish his career with half of Gretzky's production. Let's not forget that Gretzky's 1st two years he had 106 goals and 189 assists. Crosby is not far behind with 75 goals and 147 assists. So Sid's only 79 points behind. The sick thing is in the next 6 years, Gretzky had 1219 points. He AVERAGED more than 200 points a year for 6 years!!! In his first 10 years, he averaged 184 points/season. And let's not forget his 274 play off points in his first ten years, and the 4 Cups. Can Crosby even come remotely close to that?? Not on your life.

You may very well be right about where Crosby will finish offensively. He's less focused on racking up points and more on winning games. Is Ron Francis better than Gordie Howe? He has a slight edge over Gordie in PPG and only didn't surpass Gordie's totals because he didn't play enough games. If we were to use the stats available we could conclude that he is indeed better than Gordie. Pretty absurd. Gordie scored in a low scoring era, Francis in the highest scoring era in history. And on top of that Howe could do anything else on the ice as well. Francis doesn't make most peoples top 50 . Howe is almost always top 3. But Willus, you say, how can that be? Look at Francis's stats. He's awesome...Or how about Mikita? Is Francis better than Mikita? Same story. 80's scoring needs to be taken in context.

I'll do those adjusted stats you requested but it may take me some time.

Hey Willus, I am not disuputing that the 80's were a higher scoring era. And if Gretzky was beating guy by 10-15 points in the scoring race your arguement would be more valid. But that wasn't the case. Sure WG played in the highest scoring era, but he was SO far ahead of everyone else, that's where the adjusted stats lose their relevance. Look at the fact that Messier, who played pretty much the same years as Gretzky, finished his career with almost 1000 less points, with 300 more games. In the 80's alone Gretzky was 980 better than Mess. So in the 90's (dead puck era) Gretzky had more points than Messier as well. I know your stand on the whole looking at stats thing, and I agree that it's not what makes a player great. But I just can't discredit those stats as quickly as you can. If it was close, I can see it. But it wasn't even close.

And as far as Francis goes, him not being in most people's top 50 is the same as Kurri not being in most people's top 50. People view those kinds of players as benefiting more from their partners (ie. Gretzky and Lemiuex) than them actually being good players. Neither belong with the likes of the regular top 5 (Gretzky, Orr, Howe, Messier, and Lemiuex), but they belong in the top 50, maybe even top 25.

Regardless, I digress. Getting back to the point of Crosby vs. Gretzky in 79. Hear out my point. You said it yourself, the 80's were the highest scoring decade in NHL history. It was run and gun, 8-5 shoot outs. That being said, as a coach or a GM, is a guy that's going to put up 1979 points in 10 years (can you beleive that! almost averages 200 points/year!) going to win you more Games and more Cups or the guy that will more than likely not put up as many points and play a little better defensively?? In a run and gun world, you need to run and gun the best to win.

That is why I stated in my first response that if it was 2005 and you had a choice between Gretzky and Crosby that would make a more compelling arguement. I could more easily understand the arguement for Crosby there. Can you honestly say that in the highest scoring period in hockey you would not take the most prolific scorer?? That just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997.

First, I was the culprit, not Willus, who called Crosby a "complete" player. I stand corrected on that - should have used wording like "more complete" (meaning more than Wayne). On that point, I think we can agree.

Secondly, and I know there are holes in what I am about to say, but I'll throw it out there anyway for fun (or for the equivalent of chalk screeching on a blackboard for those on this site who are sick of Gretzky debates).

In the 13 years from 1979 to 1992, a large part of which included the Run and Gun era that you are talking about, Brian Trottier and Mark Messier each ended up holding the Cup more than Wayne did. Now I don't want to speak for Willus, but I think what he may be getting at is that Crosby's game is a bit more in the direction of those two players, and hey, they did more than all right in that time period, didn't they (and Crosby arguably has a few special talents above and beyond those players and may come to prove to be even "greater" than them).

As William Hurt said in the Big Chill, "Just trying to keep the conversation lively". Guys hearing the chalk in their ears now I'm sure would argue that this conversation died a long time ago though.

Take a look at the teams that were competing with the Oilers through the 80's. Islanders early, Philly, Boston, occasionally Calgary and Montreal. All of those teams were designed very simalar. With skilled offensive player who could play defensively as well. The Trottier type forwards.

What happened to them?? They lost to the offensive Oilers the majority of the time.

Teams did not have players defensive enough to stop them. I highly doubt there was a group you could put together that could stop the crew of Gretzky, Kurri, Anderson, Messier, Coffey plus what ever supporting cast they had. And Gretzky was a gear that drove the monster!

Alternately, there were not any more talented offensive players than those 5 in the league, so most couldn't keep up with them offensively either. Once the off season started, the Oil really pulled into high gear and they blew everyone away. Save the year that Smith scored on himself, it was not far fetched to think the Oiler could have won that Cup, plus 1 or 2 more if Gretzky stayed an Oiler.

So my point remains the same. In the era of the highest scoring in history, the most successful team was the high octane offensive team. Why would you not want the most prolific scorer in history as the driving force.

And yes, Trottier hoisted the Cup a time or two more than Gretzky, but were his contribution with Pitt a reason for their Cups?? That's like saying Glen Anderson was a reason that NYR won in 94.

That's a bit of a stretch there Andy my man.

Answer three questions for me:

1) Who was the most succesful team in the 80's??

2) How did they achieve their success??

3) If you said defensive to question 2, who do you want to be your leader?? If you answered offensive, who would you want to be your leader??

If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997.

Everything about the Oilers was geared to offense. It was the perfect team for Gretzky. Kurri was the perfect linemate for him and the rest of the gang was the perfect supporting cast. That is how he accomplished what he did in the early 80's. His team mates have said that they would actually try and help him get to those milestones. Break the records. I have a major problem with that fundamental philosophy. It's playing for the wrong reasons.

Why didn't Edmonton win a cup until roughly the third year he had a 200 point season? He was putting up 200 points in a season and his team didn't win? 38 points in the playoffs in 83 and they didn't win? The Islanders blew them out in four straight games? Can't be. What happened?Oh yeah, they forgot about defense. The next year they focused on it a little more and they managed to win. That is a fact. Interesting no?

Thought I'd mention this as well. The difference between Gretzky's best year and Espo's best year after adjustment isn't as great as you might think. Gretzky's best 172 points.Esposito's best 147 points.

25 point difference.

Also Esposito's margin of victory in the scoring race without adjustment(if you take Orr out of the equation) was pretty much the same as Gretzky's some years.

Willus, thanks for the adjusted stats. Even though I don't believe in them, looking at those numbers still tells me Sid the Kid has a really tall order to even match Gretzky's "adjusted" numbers. But the more important one to me is will Sid have 4 rings by 2017?? That will be a fun one to watch! I truely wish him luck.

Getting to your points on Esposito, I have him incredibly high on my list too. He's in the 6-7 spot all time on my list, so it's no surprise to me with your adjusted stats thing. He was one of the top 5 goal scoring players of all time. He was sick!

And finally, to your point of the Oilers only winning after they played defensively. I looked back on the ten years from 80-81 to 89-90. Hopefully we can agree that was the "run and gun" decade. Here's what I came up with:

-Of the 10 Cups, 7 were the team that finished 1st or 2nd in goals for. The exceptions were EDM in 89-90 (Ranked 6th), MONT in 85-86 (ranked 7th) and NYI in 82-83 (Ranked 15th). So 70% of the Cups went to the strongest offensive teams in the league.

-Of the 10 Cups, only 3 went to the team with the 1st or 2nd best GA ranking. Twice it went to the 4th best defensive team. The other 5 Cups went to the team ranked, 8th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 10th. All those 5 were the Oilers. So, every Oiler Cup was won with them average compared to the league in GA.

-Goal differential was Key! Every single Cup in that time period was won by a team 5th in the league or better in Goal Differential.

-Looking at the combined of the whole decade, the Top 5 GA teams were: MONT, BOS, BUFF, PHILLY, WASH. How many Cups there?? 1.

-Top 5 GF Teams were: EDM, CAL, LA, NYI, PHI. How many Cups there?? 9

What this tell me that you could be average defensively and great offensively and win the Cup. However, you could not be great defensively and average offensively and do the same thing.

My point again, in the highest scoring period in NHL history, where the Top 5 offensive productive teams won 90% of the Cups, how could you not choose the most prolific scorer in history to lead the team??

And I am still waiting for people to answer my three questions!

If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997.

3) If you said defensive to question 2, who do you want to be your leader?? If you answered offensive, who would you want to be your leader??

If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997.

Answers

1) In the thread recently about who had the toughest competition amongst the modern dynasties there were some persuasive arguments for the Islanders. I went with the late 70s Habs, but I noticed that very few people, if any, even made outside arguments for the Oilers. Thinking about it in that light, I think that there is a very legitimate argument to be made that the Islanders were the most successful team of the 1980s.

2) The Isles achieved it by an excellent combination of defence and offence.

3) I would want my leader to be strong offensively and defensively. A complete player. A guy named Bryan Trottier.

Having said all that (partially just to "keep the conversation lively"), Beans, your point is very well understood. As the Oilers took over in '84, the run and gun game did too for the remainder of the decade. And for run and gun, it's hard to go against Wayne. That's why I chose him as my answer here. But, as said in an earlier post of mine, let's wait and see how Sid does in the next few years offensively. If he is spectacular or "sick" as you say, a la Espo, offensively, I think this question has to be re-evaluated. If you have a guy who is that good offensively and also does other things to clearly make him a more complete player than Wayne, than you may want to have him more than Wayne, even if such numbers (Espo-like numbers), as sick as they are, aren't quite as sick as Wayne-like numbers.

One last thing, on your Islanders blowing out the Oilers in 83, I have nothing I can say. The Oil got stomped and that's it. Maybe a bit cocky?? Still no excuse. I give you that one hand's down!

If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997.

All I was saying with that example was that defensive play has to be a part of the teams thinking to win. Edmonton realized after that stomping that they had to pay a little more attention to defense and the next season they started their run of 4 cups. It isn't a coincidence.

Willus, not personally against you, but I find that most people only talk about these adjusted stats when they are talking about Gretzky. I find it a bit unfair to use one measurement against a specific player and not use the same comparison against everyone else.

In the end, I agree that adjusted stats are the best way to compare different eras. However, there are so many other factors that impact the game that I don't really believe there is a good way to do cross over between eras. As an example, the development in icemaking today compared to 50 years ago is night and day. I don't see how adjusting stats can measure that. Put Bobby Orr on todays ice with todays skates and what happens?? Adjusted stats can't measure that. Another thing is goalie equipment. Think of Esposito, Hall, Dryden to name a few in the equipment Patrick Roy wore through the 90's? There just isn't a good way to do that type of comparison.

I do give you credit in the fact that you have talked about adjusted stats with players other than Gretzky, but the comparison still comes back to Gretzky. Why don't we look at adjusted stats of Messier vs Howe?? Esposito vs. Lemieux?? Coffey/Bourque vs. Orr?? Brodeur vs Hall?? Lidstrom vs. Potvin??

I hope you can see my point.

If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997.

3) If you said defensive to question 2, who do you want to be your leader?? If you answered offensive, who would you want to be your leader??

If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997.

1) By number of cup wins you would probably have to say Edmonton.

2) If you are suggesting it's because of the run and gun style that Edmonton won 5 cups than I would have to say it's a toss up between the Islanders and Oilers. The Oilers last cup was not won because of a run and gun style. Edmonton won 4 with the run and gun style. 1 with a balanced style. The Islanders won 4 with a balanced style. Montreal won with a balanced style bordering on the defensive style. Calgary won with a balanced style. These are my evaluations of the winning teams.

3) Is your third question about Crosby/Gretzky or anyone in the 80's?Between those two and considering that I believe most of the teams in the 80's won with a balanced team either of these two would be just fine I think. Leaders are leaders. However if I could choose from the 80's I would choose as Andy did. Trottier. Hands down for me.

Willus, not personally against you, but I find that most people only talk about these adjusted stats when they are talking about Gretzky. I find it a bit unfair to use one measurement against a specific player and not use the same comparison against everyone else.

In the end, I agree that adjusted stats are the best way to compare different eras. However, there are so many other factors that impact the game that I don't really believe there is a good way to do cross over between eras. As an example, the development in icemaking today compared to 50 years ago is night and day. I don't see how adjusting stats can measure that. Put Bobby Orr on todays ice with todays skates and what happens?? Adjusted stats can't measure that. Another thing is goalie equipment. Think of Esposito, Hall, Dryden to name a few in the equipment Patrick Roy wore through the 90's? There just isn't a good way to do that type of comparison.

I do give you credit in the fact that you have talked about adjusted stats with players other than Gretzky, but the comparison still comes back to Gretzky. Why don't we look at adjusted stats of Messier vs Howe?? Esposito vs. Lemieux?? Coffey/Bourque vs. Orr?? Brodeur vs Hall?? Lidstrom vs. Potvin??

I hope you can see my point.

If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997.

Not at all Beans. I do know where you're coming from. I actually enjoy seeing how different players come out after adjustment. Not just Gretzky. If you look at the highest scoring players of all time you see that the majority played most of their career in the 80's. It's interesting how the list evens out after adjustment. I think the adjusted stats should always be considered when comparing stats. Gretzky, Messier, Dionne, Francis, Yzerman, Lemieux, Bourque, Coffey, Trottier, Hawerchuk, Kurri, Gilmour, Oates, Savard, Gartner etc...All in the top 20 all time, all played in the highest scoring era and all should have those stats viewed with that in mind. It isn't just Gretzky that gets hit with the adjusted stats, it's just that people point to his stats more often than any other player.

Good point on the adjusted stat Willus. It's interesting because you get frustrated when people say Look at Gretzky's stats, and I get frustrated when people say the stats mean nothing. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

And Trottier is a solid pick, don't get me wrong. And he was a great defensive player. But it's also interesting to note that the Cup years were some of his finest offensively. And once the Oilers started flying, the balanced attack could not beat them. Philly and Boston also come to mind. Balance, but couldn't win the Cup.

Philly actually was the only team when you take 80-81 through 89-90 that were in the top 5 in GF, GA, and differential, but they never won a Cup.

It seems that in every other era but the 80's, a strong defensive game would grant a fair amount of success. The thing with the 80's, and the OIlers specifically is that you not only had to contain them, but had to out score them. That's where teams like Philly and Boston struck out. They had the skills to keep the Oilers in the 5 or less goal range, but couldn't get the 6-7 it took to beat them. That's why the Oilers won. There was no way you could keep the Big 5 off the scoreboard enough to win defensively over a 7 games series. And when you tried to out score them, it opened up more chances for the Oilers.

That's also why the Islanders had success with the Oil in the first part of the 80's. They had the players to keep them in some kind of check, but could also score with them without sacrificing their end of the ice.

That is why I say that any other era but the 80's has a very valid arguement for Crosby over Gretzky. But not the 80's.

If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997.

I actually passed out a while ago when I thought I read a comparison between Gretzky and Rick Vaive. Not sure if it was real. Anyway, I'm gonna' have a coffee now, and try to regroup.

The Oil WILL make the playoffs.

I can't believe it took someone so long to say something about that. It was simply meant to make a point about cherry picking. If you remember Vaive you will most likely recall he was a cherry picker. As was Gretzky. Just because he had incredible vision on the ice it doesn't mean he didn't cherry pick.

Willus, I think you have been spending too much time with Chooch. I really think your view of WG is a little sku'ed by not watching him in a long time. You can look at the 39-50 game and say he cherry picked. He wasn't a cherry picker.Not typically.

If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997.

Willus, I think you have been spending too much time with Chooch. I really think your view of WG is a little sku'ed by not watching him in a long time. You can look at the 39-50 game and say he cherry picked. He wasn't a cherry picker.Not typically.

If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997.

Chooch and I aren't the only ones who will tell you he cherry picked Beans. Hanging out between your blue line and center while the puck is in your end is cherry picking and Gretzky spent alot of time there. As I said before people will say it was his incredible anticipation and vision that enabled so many break out plays.Alot of it was cherry picking. You didn't hear people say "wow Vaive has great vision and anticipation" when he was putting up his 50 goal seasons. For some reason with him people called a spade a spade. Cherry picker. I'm not saying it's all Gretzky did. But he did definitely do it. And it was enough that people noticed.

If I recall correctly Beans, you are in your early 30's. With respect, I don't think you would even remember his 200 point seasons would you? Can you honestly tell me from what you remember of his early career that he didn't cherry pick?

Willus, I am not quite 30, so I don't recall many of the games "live." However, the only person that I know that is a bigger fan than Gretzky is my father. He, "without expressed written consent from the NHL" taped every game that he could from I think 1984. I have not watched many of them in a while, but I have definately seen enough of him, basically from the mid-80's on to have a pretty good assessment of WG.

I will give up one thing. There were many times where Gretzky would set up shop in "his office" and then the play would go the other way. That left him far behind the pack. So, there were times where the play was broken up and the Oilers defensive blue line that made it look like Gretzky was cherry picking. More like he was late back in the play. Both are irresponsible defensively, but being late back is not cherry picking.

If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997.

Guest9946 ( )

Posted - 09/08/2007 : 17:15:20

quote:Originally posted by willus3

quote:Originally posted by OILINONTARIO

I actually passed out a while ago when I thought I read a comparison between Gretzky and Rick Vaive. Not sure if it was real. Anyway, I'm gonna' have a coffee now, and try to regroup.

The Oil WILL make the playoffs.

I can't believe it took someone so long to say something about that. It was simply meant to make a point about cherry picking. If you remember Vaive you will most likely recall he was a cherry picker. As was Gretzky. Just because he had incredible vision on the ice it doesn't mean he didn't cherry pick.

"You are not your desktop wallpaper"

What many people fail to realize is that Gretzky (and Lemieux incidentally) was coached to play within a certain offensive system. It's called the "high game" by some coaches. Gretzky and Lemieux were coached to stay high. It forced the opposition to stay high with them, which would create space for the rest of the team (the Oilers) to bring the play up the ice, since the opposing defence was worried about Gretzky receiving a breakout pass. You will notice that Gretzky would be skating circles, almost in figure 8 patterns, up and down between the red line and offensive blue line at times (especially on the power play), which would force the opposition's defense to try and stay with him. This would allow players like Coffey all kinds of time and room to do their thing. Only certain players who are smart enough to play it can do it without becoming a defensive liability...and obviously Gretzky and Lemieux were two of those players. Rick Vaive on the other hand was not. We need to make the distinction.

Guest9946 ( )

Posted - 09/08/2007 : 17:18:34

I want to let it be known I have nothing against Rick Vaive. He just didn't have the same vision that Gretzky or Lemieux had. But who did, right? Rick, you were a very good player.

quote:What many people fail to realize is that Gretzky (and Lemieux incidentally) was coached to play within a certain offensive system. It's called the "high game" by some coaches. Gretzky and Lemieux were coached to stay high. It forced the opposition to stay high with them, which would create space for the rest of the team (the Oilers) to bring the play up the ice, since the opposing defence was worried about Gretzky receiving a breakout pass. You will notice that Gretzky would be skating circles, almost in figure 8 patterns, up and down between the red line and offensive blue line at times (especially on the power play), which would force the opposition's defense to try and stay with him. This would allow players like Coffey all kinds of time and room to do their thing. Only certain players who are smart enough to play it can do it without becoming a defensive liability...and obviously Gretzky and Lemieux were two of those players. Rick Vaive on the other hand was not. We need to make the distinction.

Call it the "high game" call it what you will. It doesn't change the fact that it is cherry picking.

It also has more to do with how good the rest of the team is and whether they can get you the puck out there at center. Something Coffey was very good at. The breakout pass.